The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
Did Poe say 'The best things in life make you sweaty'?
The Gallery of Fake Viral Images
Vilcabamba, the town of very old people, 1978
BMW's April Fool's Day Hoaxes
Cursed by Allah
Monkeys pick cotton, a 19th-century urban legend
The Stone-Age Tasaday Hoax, 1971
The Great Electric Sugar Swindle, 1884
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
The Instant Color TV Hoax, 1962
Brangelina Twins Photoshopped?
People magazine reportedly paid $14 million for the rights to publish the first pictures of the twin babies of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. But what the blogosphere is buzzing about is the suspicion that the cover photo of the twins was photoshopped. New York magazine seems to be the originator of this theory:

In that cover photo, it looks like Vivienne Marcheline — clearly the Ashley half of this Olsen-like combo — is sporting a giant grin. She may even be laughing. Hold on. These babies are purported to be a mere 3 weeks old! Parenting magazine says that babies don't smile from exterior stimulation until two to four months — even if said exterior stimulation is the most beautiful pair of humans in the entire world.

The picture could very well be photoshopped. Most magazine covers are nowadays. But to me it simply looks like the baby happened to have its mouth open.
Categories: Birth/Babies, Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Tue Aug 05, 2008
Comments (10)
Anicah was "smiling" in her bassinet at the hospital about 4-6 hours after her birth. She was asleep...but she did it a lot...and when she was a little older I got real smiles out of her when she was awake.

Jocelynn used to laugh in her sleep as a newborn.

The smiles & laughs were totally random. Sometimes they would be alone in their crib/bassinet. Other times I would be moving them from one shoulder to another & it would happen.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  11:23 AM
Just because babies don't smile from external stimulation, doesn't mean they're incapable of smiling -- it means they simply don't know they're making a happy face! As Maegan notes, cheerful expressions at that age are totally random. Indeed, it's most likely that Vivienne Marcheline had a bit of gas smile
Posted by Cleanser  in  the kids' playroom  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  11:35 AM
So Brangelina finally cashed in on their gossip empire... smart move
Posted by media boy  in  usa  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  12:49 PM
Nope, I don't buy that its "shopped". I have photos of my older daughters clearly smiling before they were a month old. My oldest used to actually giggle in her sleep. Laughter and smiles are reflexive, not learnt.
Posted by Jean  in  JeannieGrrl.Com  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  01:45 PM
The comment about the photoshop baby's is so untrue, parenting magazine is a crock. Many articles they have are so outdated, and I bet are written by people that don't even have kids. They probably use old stock material from the 60's.
My daughters have both had kids this past month, and I can get them both to smile, all I have to do is look at them and talk to them in my silly granny voice, and give them smooches on their face and neck.
Some baby's are just born happy to start with.
Posted by Medusa  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  02:02 PM
I agree with Medusa; most modern parenting advise is utter crap. I recently read an article allegedly debunking baby myths, except my oldest daughter violated every one of them and my other three most of them. Add to that the truly horrible advise being given, it's a wonder any parent can raise a child today without going insane.
Posted by Joe  on  Tue Aug 05, 2008  at  02:39 PM
You'd smile too if you heard that photos of you and your sibling were worth $14 million.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Aug 06, 2008  at  04:21 AM
Nice, CMG:)

My babies both smiled from the get-go, too. I'm not convinced it was as an expression of happiness or anything though - when I tried to be objective it seemed a little too unconnected with stimuli. Obviously the desire that it be so sets thie scene for a nice bit of confirmation bias to come into play!

OTOH, you never get a magazine cover that's NOT been photoshopped to some degree... It's perfectly possible that the photog got lucky enough to catch a 'smile' (given the rate at which pros take photos the smile would only have needed to be there for half a second), but the chances that a photo editor helped things along are pretty good too.
Posted by outeast  on  Wed Aug 06, 2008  at  04:33 AM
Well, as everyone has already mentioned, it's highly likely People Magazine would do a little touching up after it's already spent $14 million on the pix. But a baby having its mouth open and its eyes closed does not equal a "smile" in the sense of reacting to something happy or funny. grin LOL cheese smile wink snake
Posted by Big Gary  in  Tool, Texas  on  Wed Aug 06, 2008  at  04:02 PM
Yeah, my daughter was making smiles from about day one. I think that many or most of them weren't really because she was expressing happiness about something, but more because her face was just learning how to move around and make expressions. Babies smile, frown, grimace, and do all sorts of odd things at odd times.

I expect that the photographer for the magazine just stood there and took about fifty billion pictures from all sorts of different angles, and he just got lucky and snapped this picture where the one baby is making that expression. There are probably tons of unused pictures from the photo session that didn't make it and are sitting in some filing cabinet.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Sat Aug 09, 2008  at  12:03 AM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.